Back
2023 MarsdenLR 380
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TUANKU NUR ZAHIRAH – Appellant
Versus
CLARE LOUISE BROWN & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(NCVC)(W)-2109-11/2022]
The court clarified that statements implying corrupt practices can be deemed defamatory, emphasizing the necessity for accuracy in public statements, especially concerning individuals of high standing.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 - Defamation - The Plaintiff, as Sultanah of Terengganu, claimed defamation against the Defendants for statements made in a book regarding her involvement with the 1MDB scandal. The High Court dismissed the claim, stating the statements were not defamatory. The appellate court found that the statements implied corrupt practices and could lower the Plaintiff's reputation, thus ruling them defamatory. The 1st Defendant admitted to a mistake regarding the Plaintiff's identity. (Paras 5, 11, 32, 44, 47)
(B) Freedom of Speech - While guaranteed, it is subject to limitations under s 500 of the Penal Code and the Defamation Act. The Plaintiff must prove publication, reference, and defamatory nature of statements. (Paras 12, 13)
(C) Justification - The Defendants failed to establish the defence of justification, as they admitted to a mistake and did not verify facts. (Paras 38, 42)
(D) Damages - The appellate court awarded RM 300,000 in damages, considering the Plaintiff's societal standing and the impact of the defamatory statements. (Paras 44, 46)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defamatory statements about the plaintiff. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. high court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. plaintiff's arguments on error in judgment. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal standards for defamation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court's analysis of the impugned statements. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. impugned statements deemed defamatory. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. assessment of damages awarded. (Para 38 , 39 , 44 , 45) |
| 8. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 46) |
A. Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the Plaintiff in the Court below against the decision of the High Court on 31 October 2022 in dismissing her defamation claim against the Defendants. We heard the appeal on 22 September 2022 and reserved our decision to 12 December 2023. We unanimously allowed the appeal and now provide the grounds of our decision. The parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court.
B. Background Facts
[2] The Plaintiff is the Sultanah for the State of Terengganu. The 1st Defendant is and was at the material time the author of The Sarawak Report: The Insight story of the 1MDB Expose (the said book). The 2nd Defendant is the publisher of the said book whereas the 3rd Defendant is the printer of the said book. The book was released in August 2018 and in the words of learned counsel for the Plaintiff:
"covering 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal from its inception as Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA), the diversion of funds from 1MDB under the central of Najib Razak and Jho Low and the events, leading up to the May 2018 General Elections"
[3] More than 2,000 copies of the said books were sold. The Plaintiff's claim is founded on the statement at p 5 of the said book whereby it was stated:
"In April he had netted himself an official advisory role at the newly setup sovereign wealth fund designed to invest the oil revenues from the Malaysian State of Terengganu (since elections in this oil state had just been won by the opposition, BN was ruthlessly looking for its revenues into a friendly controlled entity). Jho was also friendly with a key player in Terengganu, the wife of the Sultan, whose acquiescence was needed to set up the fund and he later cited her support as having been crucial to his obtaining the advisory position. This was the fund that would shortly be converted into the scandalous entity known as 1MDB"
[4] It is the Plaintiff's case that these impugned statements are defamatory of her. The Plaintiff's pleaded case that the impugned statements, in its natural and ordinary meaning and/or imputation is capable of being defamatory as it brings the following imputations:
(i) The Plaintiff interferes with the administration of the state of Terengganu;
(ii) The Plaintiff used her position to influence and to establish Terengganu Investment Authority and to set up the sovereign wealth fund;
(iii) The Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the sovereign wealth fund;
(iv) The Plaintiff used her position to assist and /or support Jho in obtaining Jho's advisory role in the sovereign wealth fund of Terengganu Investment Authority;
(v) The Plaintiff is involved in corrupt practices;
(vi) The Plaintiff is associated with and has close ties with persons with questionable character namely Jho, whose reputation based on media reports is a playboy and one who sought by authorities;
(vii) The Plaintiff has the ability to influence the administration of the State of Terengganu and that is one who is running the administration and affairs of the State of Terengganu.
C. Summary of the High Court's decision
[5] It must be noted that the Plaintiff had earlier on obtained summary judgment against the Defendants pursuant to O14A of the Rules of Courts 2012 which was allowed by the then presiding judge. On appeal, the Court of Appeal had, on 24 August 2021, allowed the appeal and ordered that the case be heard by full trial by the le
